PA-Research and Practice

8/3/2019 PA-Research and Practice

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pa-research-and-practice 1/59

Cornell University ILR School

DigitalCommons@ILR

CAHRS Working Paper SeriesCenter for Advanced Human Resource Studies

(CAHRS)

2-1-1992

The Current State of Performance AppraisalResearch and Practice: Concerns, Directions, andImplicationsRobert D. Bretz Jr.Cornell University

George T. MilkovichCornell University

Walter Read Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs




http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp






. ".

PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL

REsEARCH AND

PRACTICE

Working Paper 92-15



THE CURRENT STATE OF PER FORMANCE APPRA ISAL RFSEARCH AND PRACTICE:

CONCERNS, D IRECTIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

ROBERT D . BRETZ, JR.

and

GEORG E T. M ILKOVICH

Center for Advanced Human Resou rce S tu dies

ILR Schoo l - Corne ll Universi ty

393 Ives H all, Ithaca, NY 14853-3901

(607) 255-5427

W ALTER READ

V ice P resid ent o f Human Resou rces

Empire B lue C ross and B lue Shield

622 T hird Aven ue



THE CURRENT STATE O F PER FORMANCE APPRA ISA L RESEARCH AND PRACTIC E:

CONCERNS , D IRECTIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

On the surf ac e, it is not re ad ily apparent how some per fo rmance app ra is al r es ea rch

i ssues inform performance apprai sa l p ract ice. Because per fo rmance apprai sa l is an app lied

topic, it is useful to periodically consider the current state of p erform ance research and its

relation to perform ance appraisal practice. T his review ex am ines the perform ance appraisal

literatu re pu blish ed in both academ ic and p ractitio ner outlets betw een 198 5 and 199 0, briefly

d isc usses th e cu rre nt state o f p erfo rm an ce a pp ra isal p rac tic e, h ig hlig hts th e ju xtap ositio n o f

re sea rc h an d p ra ctic e, a nd su gg ests d irec tio ns fo r fu rth er re sea rc h.

----------



3

Acco rding to som e w riters, p erform an ce appraisal research has done little to im pro ve

its usefu ln ess as a m anagerial decision-m ak in g too l (T horn dike, 1 949; B anks & Murph y,

1985; N apier & L atham , 1986). Som e have suggested that the issues dom inating

p erfo rm an ce ap pra is al re sea rc h (L e. fo rm ats, e va lu ato r train in g, an d co gn itiv e p ro ce ssin g),

and the m ethod ological designs bein g used in this research, seem at odds w ith o rganizational

realities. For exam ple, B anks and M urphy (1985) w arned that if cognitive process research

c on tin ue d a lo ng co ntempo ra ry lin es, th e ap paren t g ap b etw ee n p erfo rm an ce ap pra is al

research and practice w ould increase. N apier and Latham (1986) suggested that progress on

perform ance appraisal practice has lagg ed because the research w hich m igh t info rm practice

has ignored T ho rndike's (1949) call for practicality in its quest for m easu rem en t eleg ance.

B ern ard in an d V illa no va (1 98 6) co nclu ded th at b ette r u nd erstan din g o f th e o rg an iza tio na l

contexts in w hich appraisal takes place w as necessary in order to im prove the degree to

whic h p erfo rm an ce ap pra isal re sea rc h c on trib utes to p erfo rm an ce ap pra isal p rac tice .

T here is a grow in g co ncern that m uch o rganizational research , w hile

me thodologic ally s ophis tic ate d, la ck s sub sta ntiv e app lic atio n and is d ire cte d toward

increasingly selectiv e audiences of researchers, to th e neglect of oth er au dien ces such as



4

provides an overview of the current state of perform ance appraisal practice in U .S.

organizatio ns, (3) compares the trends in p erform an ce ap praisal research w ith th e issues

em erging in practice, and (4) proposes research to address what appear to be the under-

stu die d o r o ve rlo ok ed issu es .

RECENT PERFORMANCE APPRA ISAL RESEARCH

Pu blish ed articles ab out th e p erfo rm an ce app raisal process w ere identified u sing a

c ompu te rize d literatu re sea rch (AB I/ln fo rm ) a ugmen ted b y rev iew in g th e ta ble s o f c on te nts

from several academ ic an d p ractitioner journals. T his literature review is not exh austive

since it do es not in clu de technical repo rts, d issertation s, textb ook s, o r ch ap ters. H ow ev er,

w e believe that it serves to indicate, w ith som e precision, the focus of perform ance appraisal

research , and the m anner in w hich app raisal researchers have ch osen to allocate their lim ited

resources. R eaders interested in review s covering earlier tim e periods are referred to

B ernardin and B eatty , 19 84; B ernard in and V illanov a, 198 6; D eN isi, C afferty, and M eglino ,

1984; D eNisi and W illiam s, 1988; Feldm an, 1981; Landy and Farr, 1980; and W exley and

K lim oski, 1984. R eaders should also note that som e of the cognitive processing studies

identified below are discussed in som e detail in Lord and M aher's (1989) review of the



5

on halo th an o n o th er issu es. Feed back issu es w ere th e o ne area w here field stud ies w ere

the rule rather than the exception. R esearch about sources of ratings, rater training,

form ats, fairn ess, and ap praisal uses and consequ en ces w as lim ited. H ow ever, these issu es

w ere freq ue ntly d iscu sse d in th e p ra ctitio ne r-o rien ted o utlets, m ost o fte n in c ase -stu dy

descriptions or in "how to" articles. In the follow ing sections, these m ajor segm ents of the

literature are exam in ed . A lth oug h space lim itation s preclud e the d iscu ssion of every study ,

each section attem pts to high light th e key issues ex am ined and th e m ethod olog ies commonly

used.

Cogni tive Process ing of Infonnat ion

Information process ing issues dominated recent performance appraisal research.

Laboratory settings and student subjects w ere very common; only a few studies heeded

B anks and Murph y's (19 85) call for incorp oratin g non -stu dent su bjects an d field setting s in

research designs of cognitive process issues (H ogan, 1987; H uber, Podsakoff & Todor,

1986; Jolly, R eynolds & Slocum , 1988; M ount & Thom pson, 1987; Schm itt, N oe, &

Gottschalk , 198 6). C og nitive pro cessing research co ncentrated aroun d tw o issu es: (1 ) h ow

prior exp ectations or k now ledge of prio r perform ance levels affect the w ay inform ation is



6

Raters ' expecta tions also m ay introduce bias into the rating process. For exam ple,

M ou nt and T hompson (1987) ex am ined the effect o f prior expectations o n subordinates'

ratings o f m anagers w hose behaviors w ere either cong ruent o r in con gruent w ith p rior

ex pec tatio ns. R esu lts in dic ate d th at w he n b eh av io r w as c on gru en t w ith e xp ec ta tio ns,

app ra is al re su lts were more accura te . S im ila rly , in a long itudinal s tudy o f 49 banking

supervisor-subordinate diads , Hogan (1987) found supervisors ' expectations introduced error

into the rating process, and th at disconfirm atio n of prior expectations app eared to low er

ratin gs. H ow ever, consistency of ratee perform ance apparently affects rater ab ility to form

general im pression s and catego rize inform ation. Padgett and Ilgen (19 89) dem on strated that

c on siste nt ra tee p erfo rm an ce led to g re ate r u se o f ca teg oriz atio n while in co nsiste nt

p erfo rm an ce le d to g rea ter re ten tio n o f b eh av io ra l in fo rm atio n.

M oreover, it appears that job and ratee know ledge also affect h ow info rm atio n is

processed. S chmitt, N oe and G ottschalk (1986) stud ied 153 school adm inistrators to test the

deg ree to w hich raters used sim ilar m ethods of com bining inform ation, and w hether rater

ag reement was base d on job-re le vant inpu ts o r on sh are d b ias. They reporte d th at ove ra llra tings f rom dif fe rent sources var ied because diff er en t r ater groups a ttached higher re la tive



7

d ecay (Murp hy & Balzer, 1 986 ). When the rater's m emory d emands are g reat, bias in

favo r o f genera l impre ss ions o r recent perfo rmance may be expec ted (Murphy , Gannett,

H err & Chen, 1986). Stress has been show n to im pact m emory by (1) causing less

differentiat ion across dimensions (halo) , (2) affecting information retrieval, and (3) possibly

affecting categ orization as w ell (S rin ivas & Motow idlo, 1 987 ). H ow ev er, rater

characteristics m ay m oderate the degree to w hich m em ory decay is problem atic. For

ex am ple, Smither and R eilly (19 87) conclud ed th at rater in tellig en ce, no t rating delays,

a ff ec ted rating accuracy.

O ther cogn itive processing stu dies are v ery d ifficu lt to classify , but illu strate th e

d iversity of this research. F or ex am ple, in form ation co llected from 22 nursing su perv isors

w as used to construct a cognitive m ap of their appraisal processes (Jolly, R eynolds &

S locum , 198 8). R esults sug gested th at values acco unted for sign ifican t variatio n in

p erfo rm an ce ratin gs. In la bo ra to ry se ttin gs u sin g s tu de nt su bjec ts, p erso na lity th eo ry (tra its)

in flu en ced even behavio rally-based ratings (K rzystofiak, C ard y & N ewman , 1 988 ), an d

in fo rm atio n ac qu isitio n p atte rn s (ran kin g v ersu s ra tin g) a ffe cte d h ow th e in fo rm atio n w as

processed (W illiam s, D eN isi, M egleno & C afferty, 1986). Sex-role stereotypes did not



8

Rate rlRa tee Pe rsonal Charac te ris tic s

Research on sex/~ender effects has yielded conflicting results. For exam ple, no sex

(or race) effects w ere reported in field settings w here job analysis w as used to develop a

task-based perform ance appraisal instrum ent (T hompson & Thompson, 1985), and no gender

differences w ere reported w hen rating fam iliar tasks in w ork situations w here feedback w as

available (Shore & T hornton, 1986). C onversely, students tended to give w om en professors

h ig her ra tin gs (Dob bin s, C ard y & T ru xillo , 1 98 8), a nd ra te rs h old in g tra ditio nal stere oty pes

of w om en tended to be less accurate w hen ratings w ere m ade for adm inistrative (versus

developm ental) purposes. In an experim ental setting, B enedict and L evine (1988)

dem onstrated that fem ales w ere m ore lenient w ith poor perform ers and delayed perform ance

appraisals and feedback sessions m ore than m ales did. H ow ever, using both betw een and

w ith in -su bje ct an aly se s P ulak os, White, O pp ler an d Borman (1 98 9) co nc lu ded th at g en de r

and rac e a ccount for an "ex tremely sma ll" amount o f varia nc e in ra tings .

R atee a~e received lim ited research attention. A field study of nursing supervisors

reported that younger subordinates w ere rated higher than older subordinates perform ing the

sam e job, and that supervisors' causal attributions appeared to be related to subordinate's



9

19 85), and (3) the effects of rater-ratee acquaintance m ay d epend o n rating form at

(K ingstrom & Main stone , 1 985). R ater affect also app eared to influence rating behavior

(T sui & B arry, 1986). H ow ever, C ardy & D obbins (1986) suggested that affect influenced

the rating not b y increasing leniency but by in trodu cing n oise into the pro cess.

Rating Errors and Accuracy

T he effect of rating errors on app raisal accuracy co ntinues to attract research

resources. M uch of this recent research has exam ined and critiqued com peting m ethods of

m easuring halo (pulakos, Schm itt & O stroff, 1986; Lance & Woehr, 1986; Feldm an, 1986).

M urphy and B alzer (1986) reported that halo w as associated w ith greater accuracy and

speculated that this m ay b e du e to catego rization schem as th at correctly classify the relevant

behavioral inform ation and elim inate the noise. N athan and Tippins (1990) also reported a

positive relatio nship betw een halo an d accuracy, but F isicaro (1988 ) co nclu ded that a

n eg ativ e re latio nsh ip ex ists. H owev er, B ec ke r an d C ard y (1 98 6) a rg ued th at th e rela tio nsh ip

betw een halo and accuracy w as am biguous, that variance and correlational form s of halo

m ay yield eith er sim ilar or divergent results. S eem ing to contradict theories of rating (e.g.

W herry, 1983), halo increased as the opportunity for students to observe perform ance of





11

V ance, M acC allum , Coovert and H edge (1988) reported that am ong a sam ple of jet engine

m echanics, peer, self, and supervisory ratings w ere equally valid sources but Fox, B en-

N ahum , and Y inon (1989) concluded that rating accuracy w as positively related to rater-

ra te e sim ila rity . M eta-a naly tic resu lts su gg ested o nly mod era te re latio nsh ip s ex ist b etw een

se lf-su perv iso r an d se lf-p eer ra tin gs (H arris & S ch au bro ec k, 1 98 8).

App ra is al F eedback

Most of the articles addressing feedback w ere conducted in field settings,

distinguishing this area of research from those dom inated by laboratory settings and student

subjects. M any of these studies focused on the effects of perform ance feedback. D iscussion

of pay and advancem ent during the perform ance feedback session w as show n to lead to

h ig he r emp lo ye e satisfac tio n w ith th e p ro ce ss b ut d id n ot in flu en ce fu tu re p erfo rm an ce

(D orfm an, Stephan & Loveland, 1986). In contrast, Prince and Law ler (1986), reported that

salary d iscu ssio ns d urin g th e a pp ra isa l in terv iew h ad e ith er n o re latio nsh ip o r a p ositiv e

relationship w ith future behavior. H ow ever, Pearce and P orter (1986), reported that

feedback describing an em ployee as "satisfactory" (as com pared to above average or

o utstan din g) led to red uc ed o rg an iz atio nal comm itm en t an d n eg ativ e attitu des towa rd th e



12

Specifically, raters do not like to give negative feedback (Larson, 1989) and are likely to

rely on scripts to deliver feedback about poor perform ance (D ugan, 1989).

The d imens iona lity o f fe edback a ls o has been examined . In a long itudinal study o f

un iversi ty employees Dorfman e t a l. (1986) ident if ied three d imensions of per fo rmance

a pp ra isa l fee db ack (b ein g su pp ortiv e, emphasizin g impro vemen t, an d d iscu ssin g p ay an d

a dv an cemen t). F urth ermore , R ussell an d Goode (1 98 8) rep orte d th at satisfa ctio n w ith

feedback also m ay be m ulti-dim ensional. T herefore, individuals w ho are satisfied w ith the

perform ance appraisal in general, m ay not be satisfied w ith the feedback it provides.

R ather, satisfaction w ith feedback m ay be a function of satisfaction w ith the supervisor

a nd /o r th e ratin g rece iv ed .

Rate r T ra in ing

Rece nt re se arch on rater tra in in g h as b ee n lim ited . Hedge a nd Kav an agh (1 988)

re po rted th at train in g fo cu sed o n m in im izin g ratin g erro rs su cce ssfu lly re du ce d len ie ncy an d

halo but also reduced accuracy. T hey concluded that rater training should em phasize

observation and decision m aking processes rather than sim ply error reduction. In a

lab ora to ry stu dy u sin g stu de nt su bje cts a nd v id eo -ta ped le ctu re s, A th ey an d McIn ty re (1 98 7)



13

differences betw een the m ethods and suggested choosing one based on ease of application or

explanation. Prien and H ughes (1987), using a state governm ent sam ple, show ed that m ixed

standard scales can be used to identify and m inim ize individual rater error and system -w ide

problem s. In 1987, M urphy and C onstans concluded that behavioral anchors m ay lead to

biased recall of perform ance. But tw o years later, M urphy suggested that the earlier results

w ere not likely to be observed in organizational settings (M urphy & P ardaffy, 1989).

Oth er R esearch Issu es

O th er re searc h-b ase d a rtic le s w ere the so le e xample s o f stu dies o n p artic ula r issu es.

For exam ple, Barrett and K ernan (1987) review ed court cases since B rito vs. Zia arising

from term inations based on perform ance appraisal, and M iller, K aspin, and S chuster (1990)

discussed perform ance appraisal practices related to age discrim ination cases. U s ing a

man ag erial sample , G ree nb erg (1 98 6) rep orte d th at p erce iv ed fairne ss o f p erfo rm anc e

eva lu atio ns d epended on th e p re senc e o f p ro cedu ra l c ha ra cte ris tic s (e .g ., c ommun ic atio n,

a pp ea ls p ro ce ss, jo b knowledge, c on sis te ncy) and d is trib utiv e cha ra cte ris tic s ( e.g ., r atin g

based on perform ance, action based on rating). Sackett, Zedeck, and Fogli (1988) used a

sam ple of superm arket cashiers to explore differences betw een typical and m axim um job



14

Case S tu die s a nd "How -To" A rtic le s

The p ro fessio nal jo urn als a re rep lete w ith article s d isc ussin g th e p erfo rm an ce

appraisal practices in various organizations, and under varying conditions. C ase studies and

"h ow to " a rticles a re c ommon . For e xamp le, Gelle rman a nd Hodgson (1 988) d isc ussed how

American Cyanamid Company transformed a ten- level forced dis tr ibution performance

appraisal system into a three-level system w hich w as deem ed to be m ore consistent w ith the

organization's culture, and S cherkenbach (1985) explained how F ord Motor C ompany

revised their appraisal practice to fit its focus on total quality. O ther case studies include

reports of the appraisal practices at X erox (D eets & Tyler, 1986), C ontrol D ata (G om ez-

M ejia, Page & Tornow , 1985), M erck (W agel, 1987), m any federal and state agencies (e.g.

G len, 1990; G oodell, 1988; H all, 1987; L aum eyer & B eebe, 1988), and several unidentified

organizations (C ayer, D iM attia & W ingrove, 1988; C ocheu, 1986; W oods & D illion, 1985).

T he p rac titio ner lite ratu re also c on ta in s sev eral "re cip es" fo r in su rin g th e

effectiveness of various appraisal practices. F or exam ple, advice is offered regarding how

to construct and im plem ent effective appraisal system s (L evy, 1989; S chneier, B eatty &

B aird, 1986a, 1986b), how to m ake effective use of team appraisals (Edw ards & Sproull,



15

exam ple, no gender (or race) effects w ere reported in fields studies but student subjects in

laboratory settings did exhibit gender bias. H alo and accuracy of appraisals w ere the

psychom etric topics of choice am ong researchers. A s w ith gender effects, the relationship

betw een halo and accuracy seem s unresolved. M ethodologically, assessm ent of paper people

or video scenarios w ith student subjects in laboratory settings is the norm . The clear

e xc eptio ns w ere the field stu dies o f the co nseq uen ces an d dim en sion ality o f ap praisal

fe edback . It a ppea rs th at s ala ry d iscussions during f eedback have e ith er no e ffe ct o r a

posi tive e ffec t on future per fo rmance, bu t labe ll ing someone as sat is facto ry rather than above

av era ge o r ou tstan ding red uces c omm itm en t an d satisfac tio n w ith th e ap praisa l sy stem.

Som e very interesting recent research w as found in the "sole exam ple" studies. These

include G reenberg's (1986) study of perceived fairness of appraisals as a function of

p ro ced ural an d d istribu tiv e ch ara cte ristics, S ack ett, Z ed eck an d F ogli's (1 988 ) u se o f ty pic al

versus m axim um job perform ance and N apier & Latham 's (1986) finding that m anagers

perceived no consequences or practical value from conducting appraisals. T hese studies

point to im portant issues that have barely been addressed.

The conclusion w e draw from this and earlier review s of appraisal research is that



16

Furth ermore , c erta in a pp ra isal issu es h av e re ce iv ed c on sid era ble atten tio n while

others have b een v irtually ign ored. T he predom inance of studies exam in ed inform atio n

processin g, and p sychom etric issues, yet virtu ally no system atic research exists on how the

o rg an iza tio nal co nte xt a ffec ts th e ra te r/ratee re latio nsh ip o r th e co gn itiv e p ro ce sses o f th e

rater, h ow raters actually appraise perform ance, how they use appraisal inform ation, or w hat

issues they believe are im portant. M oreover, research is only beginning to address how

con tex t affe cts emp lo ye e p erce ptio ns o f ap pra isa l, th eir re ac tio ns to ap praisa l o utc omes, a nd

how app ra is al purpos e ( adm in is tra tiv e v ers us d evelopmenta l) mode ra te s th es e r ela tio nship s.

T herefore, in order to understand the org anizational co ntexts in w hich ap praisals are m ade,

w e turn to a brief exam ination of the current state of perform ance app raisal practice.

CURRENT PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PRACTICES

O rganizations vary on a w ide array of factors (including for exam ple size, product

ma rk et, te chno logy , c ultu re , c ompetitiv e env ironment, s tr ate gy , a nd union r ep re senta tio n)

that are likely to affect perfo rm ance appraisal p ractices. T herefore, describing the m odal

settin g in which ap pra isa ls ta ke p lac e is e xce ed in gly d ifficu lt a nd sh ou ld b e a pp ro ac hed

c au tio usly . T o reduc e relia nc e on a sin gle su rv ey source , we th ough t it p ru den t to in te gra te



17

For purposes of this review , the survey results are considered along four dim ensions;

(1) system design and characteristics, (2) system managem ent, (3) im portant issues and

current uses, and (4) perform ance distributions. D ue to space lim itations and because the

sam ples differed in size and characteristics, w e w ill present a qualitative integration of their

findings. R eaders interested in a m ore detailed presentation of the survey results should see

M ilkovich and W igdor (1991) and W yatt (1989). D etails regarding our Fortune 100 survey

a re a va ilab le up on req uest.

S ystem Desig n a nd Charac teristic s

Desig n. T he p erfo rman ce appraisal sy stems in p lace in U .S . in du stry are o n av erag e

11 yea rs o ld . They were des igned p rima rily by pers onne l s pe cia lists w ith only lim ited inpu t

from the m anagers w ho use the system and virtually no input from em ployees affected by

them . In light of the grow ing interest in em ployee and custom er participation and

involvem ent (M iller & M onge, 1986; Schw eiger & Leana, 1986; W agner & G ooding,

1987), w e anticipated that m ore recently im plem ented system s m ight rely on more input

from line m anagers, em ployees and custom ers. H ow ever, recently im plem ented system s

w ere no m ore likely to have them involved in their design than were older system s.

F orm ats. M anagem ent-by-O bjectives (MBO) is the preferred form at for assessing



18

groups are far less likely than others to receive form al evaluations. Executives are less

lik ely to b e fo rm ally ev alu ated -- p erh ap s re fle ctin g th e d iffic ulty o f a sse ssin g p erfo rman ce

at this level, or the reluctance of executives to subm it to the process. A dditionally, m any

ho urly emplo yees d o no t receiv e fo rm al perfo rm an ce ap praisals -- re fle ctin g, in p art,

org anized labo r's distru st of the ap praisal pro cess an d neg otiated agreements lim itin g th e u se

o f formal app ra is al s.

Raters and Sources of Rating Infonnation. The vast m ajority of perform ance

ratings com e directly from the immediate m anager. For m anagerial and professional

em ployees, the second level m anager also has significant input. R ecent research has

demonstrated th at n on-tradition al ratin g sou rces, such as self, p eers, and su bo rdinates, can

provide valid appraisals. M oreover, the popular press has attested to the increasing use of

su ch so urc es . Howev er, it a pp ea rs th at th ese typ es o f ra tin gs a re s till v ery u ncommon , a nd

when th ey a re u sed th e in fo rma tio n typically f ilte rs th rough th e immed ia te manage r who

uses it in m aking his/her appraisal.

Q uantitative indices are used to supply som e perform ance inform ation in m ost

organizations. P rofits, sales and costs w ere frequently cited as im portant m easures for



19

Decis ion Making. Per fo rmance app ra is al ~ dec is ions (e.g . whethe r to conduc t

fo rmal a pp raisals, whe th er to lin k p ay to p erfo rman ce , etc .) ten d to b e mad e at th e co rp orate

lev el in most o rg an iz atio ns, b ut th ey a re lik ely to b e mad e at th e busin ess u nit lev el in

decen tral ized organ izat ions. Decis ions regarding appra is al p ract ices (e.g . type of format to

u se , ra te r train in g issu es, e tc.), h owev er, a re a s lik ely to b e mad e at th e busin ess u nit lev el

a s th ey are at th e c orp ora te lev el. V ery few o rg an iz atio ns allow dec isio ns abou t

perform ance appraisal policies or practice to be m ade at the facility level.

T raining. M ost organizations report extensive use of rater training program s.

H ow ever, training is m ost likely to occur w hen new system s are introduced, and few

organizations provide rater training on an on-going (yearly) basis. R ater training is m ost

likely to focus on conducting appraisal interview s and providing feedback, proper use of the

n ew fo rm s, se ttin g p erfo rm an ce sta nd ard s, re co gn izin g g oo d p erfo rm an ce, an d a vo id in g

rating errors. It seem s, therefore, that perform ance appraisal practice has benefited from

previous rater training research. H ow ever, ratees receive virtually no training in how to

best use the process to receive feedback or im prove perform ance. Training rem ains focused

on the rater (m anager); preparing em ployees for their role in the appraisal process sim ply

does not occur.



20

Impo rtan t P erfo rman ce App raisa l Issu es and Uses

Not surpr is ing ly , managers consider fai rnes s and jus ti ce i ssues to be very important .

Most organizations report having an inform al dispute resolution system (e.g. open door

policies) that em ployees m ay use to contest the appraisal outcom e. A bout one-quarter report

having form alized processes available for this purpose (e. g . binding decisions m ade by a

third party). H ow ever, a sizable m inority reported that no appeals process w as available.

W hile it may be common to have a m echanism for handling appeals, it is far less comm on

to solicit em ployee opinions about the appraisal process. M ost organizations do not

sy stema tica lly c ollec t da ta to d eterm in e eith er th e man ag ers' o r th e emplo yees' p erc ep tion s

of fairness of the appraisal process or the results obtained.

Man ag ers id en tified fairn ess as th e most impo rta nt p erfo rm anc e a pp raisal issu e

organizations face. They also tend to be very concerned that the appraisal system be an

e ffe ctiv e to ol to m an ag e fu ture p erform an ce, n ot ju st o ne th at reflec ts p ast p erfo rm an ce .

M anagers indicated that they are m ost likely to use perform ance inform ation for im proving

fu tu re p er fo rmance , mak ing pay d is tr ib utio n dec is io ns , a nd commun ic atin g expec ta tio ns

regarding futu re per fo rmance.

Performance Dist ributions



21

perform ance on the part of the organization's w orkforce, or it could be indicative of

leniency bias. Since the phenom enon is surprisingly constant across organizations, and it is

unlik ely th at a ll o rg an iz atio ns h ave p redom inate ly outs ta nd ing emp loye es , th e d is trib utio ns

p robably r efle ct th e la tte r. A s a necd otal ev id en ce a nd resea rch ers' co nce rn ab ou t le nie ncy

have sugg ested, it ap pears that th e n orm in U .S . in dustry is to rate emplo yees at the top en d

o f th e sc ale . Skewed performance d istr ibutions not only exist, but a re common.

THE JUXTAPOSITION OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Cognitiv e P ro ce ss ing Is su es

R esea rch h as in dicated th at e xp ectatio ns o f fu tu re p erfo rm anc e in flu en ce th e ra tin g

process. Since these expectations are form ed on the basis of prior know ledge or beliefs,

raters w ill virtually alw ays have som e prior perform ance expectations. It also seem s that the

type of appraisal process used w ould affect the degree to w hich prior expectations becam e

problem atic. For exam ple, in MBO -based system s, the m echanism through w hich a

m anager and subordinate arrive at m utually agreed upon goals requires that each individual

form expectations regarding the level of perform ance that is achievable. F urtherm ore, since

perform ance is m easured against established goals, prior know ledge of job perform ance can



22

am ount of tim e spread over a long period, particularly w hen the perform ance of several

em ployees m ust be recalled and reported. C learly dem arcating the lim its of m em ory and

recall should lead to processes, such as m ore frequ ent appraisals and system atic

do cum entation, that w ill reduce reliance o n m emory.

Several other issues em erg e from the co gnitive p rocessin g literature. F irst, there has

been a heavy reliance on student subjects and laboratory settings. W hile there is som e

ev id ence that laboratory settings m ay provide resu lts that are as valid and gen eralizable as

th ose obtained in field setting s (e.g. L ock e, 1986 ), there is also convincing m eta-analytic

evidence that in the perform ance appraisal aren a, effect sizes in paper-p eople stu dies are

sig nifica ntly larg er th an in stu die s in vo lv in g o bse rv atio n o f b eh av io r (Mu rp hy , H err,

Lockhart & M aguire, 1986). Laboratory studies are often necessary in order to isolate

particu lar effects. H ow ev er, sterile en vironments that dilute the richness and com plexity of

the environm ent p otentially chan ge the p hen om en on o f interest. T he po tential effects o f

situatio nal and contextual variab les m ust be considered. T he task of rating th e perfo rm ance

of som eone w ith w hom an on-going relationsh ip exists is bo th co nceptually and op erationally

different than the rating task presented in laboratory settin gs. T herefore, w hile continued



23

the role of w om en and m inorities is expected to increase, particularly am ong m anagerial

ran ks. F in ally , th e in tern atio naliza tio n o f th e work fo rce in tro du ce s cu ltu ral d ifferen ce s

reg ard in g jo b d esig n, p erfo rm an ce e xp ec ta tio ns, a nd th e ro le o f p erfo rm an ce fee db ac k.

Current research m ay be culture bound since it assum es a decidedly w estern approach to

these issues. It m ay be that em ployees raised in a traditional Japanese environm ent, for

exam ple, m ay expect a m uch less directive approach to appraisal and be offended by the

co nfro ntatio nal n atu re o f d ire ct fe ed bac k. If in div id ual d iffe re nce ch aracte ristic s su ch as

these change the w ay ratings are assigned or interpreted, these trends represent significant

issu es to b e ad dre ssed .

A potentially problem atic issue that this literature needs to address is the tendency to

fin d sig nifica nt e ffe cts in stu dies u tilizin g stu den t samples b ut th e ab sen ce o f sig nific an t

effects in field settings. T his raises the question of w hether the conditions encountered in

experimen ta l s ettin gs suffic ie ntly c ap tu re th e comp lexity o f c ro ss -g ende r re la tio nship s and

sex -ro le ste re oty pe s th at ex ist in work settin gs.

P sy chome tr ic Is su es

R ese arc hers a nd man ag ers a pp ear to h av e d ifferen t co nce ptu alizatio ns o f a cc urac y.

W hat does accuracy in perform ance appraisal im ply? M any researchers w ould suggest that



24

descrip tive of w hat accuracy seem s to m ean in organizational setting s. H ow ever, since

c on ve yin g b eh av io ra l in fo rm atio n is seld om th e so le p urp ose o f p erfo rm an ce a pp raisa l,

M urphy (1991) points out that both types of accuracy have m eaning and m ay be

differen tially useful depending on the purpose for w hich the ratings are m ade (M urphy ,

Philb in , & Adams, 1 989). For e xamp le , b eh av io ra l a ccu ra cy may b e mo re importa nt when

prov id ing feedback while c la ss if icat ion accuracy may be pre fe rab le for salary admini st ra tion

decisions (M urphy, 19 91). T herefore, it appears that additional research on the anteceden ts,

definition, and consequences o f accuracy are in order.

A pp ra isa l S ou rce s

It seem s that an im portant point is frequently overlooked in research on rating

sources. Rather than focusing on w ho should rate the perform ance of others and exam ining

the psychom etric properties of v ario us rating sources, perhaps research should be exam in in g

th e p ropr ie ty o f var ious r ating sou rc es under various conditions. Tha t is, when shou ld

r atings f rom a lte rnativ e s ou rc es be u sed and how should th ey be in tegra ted w ith r atings f rom

th e immed iate man ag er? It a pp ears th at th is w ill b ecome an ev en more importan t issu e as

th e n atu re o f work contin ue s to ch ange. For ex ample , th e in cre asin g u tiliza tio n o f se lf-



25

enough about the process to adequately convey the nuances of this type of com plex hum an

resource system . It is also legitim ate to question w hether the view s expressed by a single

o rg an iz atio nal re sp on den t a re re pre se ntativ e o f th e o rg an iza tio na l m embe rs fo r whic h h e/sh e

speaks. Therefore, at the very least, it w ould seem that m ultiple perspectives, from m ultiple

o rg an iz atio na l le ve ls a re n ec es sa ry to a ccura te ly d es cr ib e th e o rg an iz atio n's p ra ctic es .

Furtherm ore, the respondents to these types of surveys are typically m iddle or high-

level hum an resource m anagers that have som e kind of policy-m aking role in the

organization. T his raises the question of w hether their responses are descriptive of the

appraisal system as practiced, or as it w as intended to be practiced. G iven the vested

interest the typ ical respondent h as in the appraisal system being described, one m ight argue

th at it wou ld be ra tio nal to p ain t as fa vo ra ble a p ic tu re as possib le . The re fo re , w e suggest

tha t fu ture survey research (1) u ti li ze mult ip le r espondents f rom each par tic ipat ing

organization , and (2 ) clearly disting uish betw een how the appraisal process w as intended to

be used and how it is actually used.

T he surveys o f curren t practices raise som e fund am ental research issu es.

Perform ance appraisal system s m ay be considered to be a series of decisions w hich are

a ffec ted b y en viro nmen ta l, o rg an iz atio nal, an d d isp ositio na l fa cto rs. R ese arch is n eed ed to



26

seem to know very little about the factors that cause decisions m akers to im plem ent certain

approaches. R esearch directed at these types of issues w ould seem particularly useful for

in fo rming futu re p ractice.

T he surveys rev ealed som e app raisal d ecisio ns that varied acro ss em ploy ee g ro ups

an d oth ers th at d id n ot. Sp ecifically, w hile MBO is th e most common ap pro ach for

assessing managers , graphic ra ting sca les a re more common among nonexempt employees,

and m any executives are not subjected to any form al appraisal process. These differences

are p oten tially p ro blema tic sin ce th e a pp ra isal p ro ce ss a pp ea rs to b ec ome le ss sta nd ard iz ed\

an d system atic at high er o rg an ization al levels. It seem s that th ese differences rep resent

potential research opp ortunities. F or exam ple, research could exam in e w hether this practice

affec ts p erc ep tio ns o f p ro ce du ral a nd d istrib utiv e ju stice b oth b etw ee n a nd w ith in emplo yee

groups. W e suspect that it does, but research as to the behavioral consequences of these

ty pe s o f p ra ctic es wou ld p ro ve in sig htfu l.

The surveys do not convey a sense of how organizations tie perform ance appraisal

practices to th eir u nderlying culture. D ifferences in this regard m ay h av e im plication s for

o rg an iz atio na l e ff ec tiv en es s. A re th er e s pe cific p erf ormance app ra is al s ys tem cha ra cte ris tic s



27

"stretc h g oa ls", fo rg iv e p erfo rm an ce s d efic ie nc ies, o r esta blish v oic e mec ha nism s? Answ ers

to these types of questions m ight begin to create a taxonom y of "fit" betw een perform ance

ap pra isal sy stem ch arac teristic s an d o rg an iz atio nal e nv iro nmen ts. S uch a ta xo nomy wou ld

certainly allow research to m ore clearly d elineate the m ost effective ap praisal practices fo r

part icu lar organiza tional set tings .

N apier & L atham (1986) found that m anagers perceived no consequences, positive or

neg ative, o f cond ucting perform ance appraisals. C onversely, L ong enecker, S im s and G ioia

(1 987) reported that because of actual and perceived negative consequences of accurate

app ra isa l, some manage rs know ingly make ra tings that a re inaccu ra te . Howeve r, the ra ting

environment l ike ly aff ec ts both ra ting practices and part ic ipant reac tions. For example ,

recen t research h as sh ow n that contex tu al variab les (such as participation and rating

freq uen cy) affect ratee satisfaction (D obb in s, C ardy , & P latz-V ieno, 1990; G iles &

Mossholder, 19 90). W ith these exceptions, recent research has no t exam ined the effects of

d iffe re nt a pp raisa l s ystem d esig ns o r p ro ce sse s o n emplo yee attitu de s a nd b eh av io rs.

S ome c ha ra cte ristic s wou ld a pp ear to in flu en ce p artic ip an t a ttitu de s. F or e xample

research also m ight address w hether the use of three, four, or five (or m ore) rating levels



28

w ithd raw than are th e p oorer on es? A re th ey more lik ely to w ithd raw than are sim ilar

per fo rmers in say f ive- leve l sys tems in which the ir per fo rmance would be d if fe rent ia lly

acknowledged?

D em in g (1 98 6) a rg ues stro ng ly tha t p erfo rm an ce ap pra isa l h as se rio us n eg ativ e

co nseq uen ces an d u rg es org an izatio ns to c ea se all in divid ual p erfo rm an ce ap pra isa ls an d to

ev alu ate u nit o r p lan t lev el p erfo rm an ce in stead (S ch oltes, 1 98 7). T his a pp ro ach , rep orte dly

in w ide used in high involvem ent - high commitment fac il it ies, focuses on ass is ting those

w hose perform ance is "out of the system ." D em ing's notions have received som e attention

in p rac titio ner p erfo rm an ce a pp raisal litera tu re b ut n o atte ntio n from resea rch ers. T he

possibility of no individual feedback seem s difficult to attain. E ven w ithout form al

in div id ua l a pp raisals, in fo rm al a pp raisals b y team lead ers an d p ee rs seem in ev ita ble an d

pe rh ap s p oten tia lly less sy stem atic an d more v uln erab le to b iases. A cco rdin gly , re search

m ig ht ad dre ss th e e ffe cts o f in fo rm al ap praisal p ro cesses o n emplo yee p erc ep tio ns, a ttitu des,

and behav io r.

T he effects of skew ed perform ance distributions on pay allocation and em ployee

attitudes also needs to be exam ined. H ighly skew ed ratings affect the distribution of m erit

p ay in creases. In fact, some argue th at the size of th e merit fu nd poo l affects th e rating s



29

CONCLUSION

In concluding, w e suggest that perform ance appraisal research and practice seem to

converge on many issues and diverge on others. Divergence on some issues is not

necessarily a problem since relevancy for decision m akers is not the purpose for all research

efforts. Y et perform ance evaluation is an applied subject, and as such research should

eventually lead to im provem ents in practice. C ontinued reliance on student sam ples and

laboratory settings is not facilitating the transfer of research into application. W e do

however n eed bette r unders ta nd ing o f th e in fo rmatio n p ro ce ssing c ap ab ilitie s a nd lim ita tio ns

o f h uman de cision mak in g.

W e also need to continue developing a m ore com prehensive theory of the rating

process. Since W herry's work in the 1950s' (see the Appendix to Landy and Farr, 1983),

th e co llectio n o f stu dies o n in fo rm atio n p ro ce ssin g is th e most se rio us, co nce ntrated a ttemp t

to date to better understand the rating process. In that fram ew ork, continued research along

those lines is useful indeed. H ow ever, attention m ust be paid to the potential effects of

situa tio na l o r co ntex tu al v ariab les. E xamin in g ap pra isal issu es in ste rile en viro nmen ts m ay

iso late th e e ffe cts m an y re se arc hers w ish to in ve stig ate, b ut also lim its th e g en eralizab ility o f





31

REFERENCES

A lexander, E. R , H elm s, M . M ., & W ilkins, R D . 1989. The relationship betw een

supervisory communicat ion and subordina te performance and sat isfact ion among

p ro fession als. P ub lic P erso nnel Man ag emen t, 18 : 4 15 -4 29 .

A ngel, N . F . 1989. E valuating em ployees by com puter. P ersonnel A dm inistrator.

Nov ember: 6 7-7 2.

A they, T. R ., & McIntyre, R M . 1987. Effect of rater training on rater accuracy: Levels-

of-processing theory and social fac il itat ion theory perspectives . Journal of Ap.pl ied

P sy cholo gy , 7 2: 5 67 -5 72 .

B alzer, W . K . 1986. Biases in the recording of perform ance-related inform ation: The

effects o f initial im pression an d c entrality o f th e ap praisal task . O rg anizatio nal

B ehavior and H um an D ecision Processes, 37: 329-347.

Banks, C . G ., & Murphy , K . R 1985. T oward narrow ing th e research-practice gap in

per fo rmance appra isal. Pe rsonnel Psychology, 38: 335-345 .

Banks, C . G ., & Roberson, L . 1 985. P erfo rmance a pp rais ers as test d ev elo pers. Acad emy

of Management Rev iew, 10: 128 -142 .



32

Becker, B . E ., & K limosk i, R . J. 1 989 . A field stu dy of the relation sh ip betw een th e

organiza tional feedback environment and performance . Personnel Psycholoey, 42:

343-358.

Bed eia n, A . G . 1989. Totems and ta boos: Undercu rren ts in th e manag emen t d isc ip lin e.

T he Academy of Managemen tN ews, 19 (4): 2 -6 .

B en ed ict, M . E ., & L ev ine, E . L . 198 8. D elay and distortio n: T acit in flu ences o n

per fo rmance appra isal e ffec tiveness. Journal o f Applied Psycho logy, 73 : 507-514.

Berna rd in , H . J . 1986. Subord inate app ra is al: A valuab le sou rc e o f in fo rma tion about

manage rs . Human Resou rc e Managemen t, 25: 421 -439 .

Bernard in , H . J ., & Abbo tt, J . 1985. P redic ting (and p reventing) d if fe rences between self

and supervisory appra isals . Pe rsonne l Admin is tr ato r. June: 151-157 .

Bern ard in , H . J., & Bea tty , R . W . 1984. P erfo rmance appra isa l: A sse ssin g human beh av io r

at w ork. Boston: K ent.

B ern ard in , H . J., & Bea tty , R . W . 1987. Can subo rd in ate a pp rais als enha nce manag eria l

p roductiv ity ? S loan Managemen tRev iew , 28: Summer, 63-73 .

B ernardin , H . J., & V illano va, P . 1 98 6. P erform an ce ap praisal. In E . A . L ock e (E d.),



33

Campbell, D . J., & Lee , C . 1 988. S elf-ap praisa l in p erfo rmance ev alu atio n: Dev elo pmen t

versus eva luation. Academy of Management Jou rnal, 13: 302 -314 .

C ardy, R . L ., & Dobbins, G . H . 1986. A ffect and appraisal accuracy: L iking as an integral

d imens ion in eva luating per fo rmance. Jou rnal o f Applied Psycholoey , 71: 672 -678 .

C ayer, M ., D iMattia, D . J., & W ing ro ve, J. 19 88. C on qu erin g evalu atio n fear. P erso nnel

Administrator . June: 97-107.

C lemen t, R . W ., & S tev en s, G . E . 1 989. P erfo rmance appraisa l in h ig her e du catio n:

Compa ring depar tments o f managemen tw i th o ther bus ines s units . Public Personne l

Manag emen t, 1 8: 2 63 -2 78 .

Cleveland, J. N ., M urphy, K. R., & W illiam s, R. E. 1989. M ultiple uses of performance

appraisal: P revalence and correlate. Jou rnal of A l1plied P sycholog y, 7 4: 1 30-135.

C ocheu, T. 1986. Perform ance appraisal: A case in points. Personnel Journal. Septem ber:

48-55.

C ozzetto, D . 1990. T he officer fitness report as a perform ance appraisal tool. Public

P erso nn el Man ag emen t, 1 9: 2 35 -2 44 .

Cza jk a, J. M ., & DeN is i, A . S . 1 988. E ffec ts o f emo tio na l d is ab ility a nd clea r p erfo rmance



34

Dem ing, E . 1 986. Out o f th e crisis. C ambird ge, MA: Ma ssac hu setts In stitu te o f

Technology Center for Advanced Engineer ing.

D eN isi, A . S., Cafferty, T. P., & M eglino, B . M . 1984. A cognitive m odel of the

per fo rmance appra isal p rocess : A model and resea rch propositi ons. Oreaniza tional

B ehavior and H um an Perform ance, 33: 360-396.

DeNisi, A . S., Robbins, T., & Cafferty, T. P. 1989. Organization of information used for

perform ance appraisals: R ole of diary-keeping. Journal of A pplied P sycholo~y, 74:

124-129.

DeN isi, A . S ., & W illiam , K . J. 19 88. C og nitive app roaches to perform ance ap praisal. In

K . M . Row lan d & G . R . F erris (E ds.), R esearch in p erso nn el and human resou rces

manag emen t, Vo1 .6 : 1 09 -155 . G reenwic h, CT: JAI P ress .

Derv en , M . G . 1990. The p aradox o f p erfo rmance appra isals. P erso nn el Jo urn al.

Feb ru ary : 1 07 -1 11 .

Dickin son, T . L . 1987. De signs fo r eva luating the valid ity and accura cy o f perfo rmance

ratings. Organizational Behavio r and Human Deci sion Processes , 40 : 1 -21 .

D ipboye, R . L . 1985. Som e neglected variables in research on discrim ination in appraisals.



35

Dorfm an , P . W ., S tep han , W . G ., & Loveland , J. 1 98 6. P erform an ce ap praisal behaviors:

Supe rv isor percept ions and subord inate react ions. Pe rsonnel Psycho logy, 39 : 579-

597.

D razin, R ., & Auster, E . R . 1987. W age differences betw een m en and wom en:

Perfo rmance apprais al ratin gs v s. s alary a llo catio n as th e lo cu s o f b ia s. Human

Reso urce Man ag emen t, 2 6: 1 57 -1 68 .

D ugan, B. 1988. Effects of assessor training on inform ation use. Journal of Applied

P sychology , 73: 743 -748 .

D ugan, K . W . 1989. A bility and effort attributions: D o they affect how m anagers

commun ica te p erfo rman ce fee db ack in fo rmatio n? Acad emy o f Man ag emen t Jo urn al,

32 : 8 7-11 4.

Earle y, P . C . 1 98 8. Compu ter-g en erated p erfo rman ce fe ed bac k in th e mag az in e-su bscrip tio n

industry . O rganizational B ehavior and Human D ecision P rocesses, 41: 50-64 .

Eder, R . W ., & Fed or, D . B . 19 89. P rim in g perfo rm ance self-ev aluation s: Moderatin g

e ffec ts o f rating purpose and judgment confidence . Organizational Behavio r and

Human D ecision P rocesses, 44: 474-493 .



36

Farh, J. L ., & Dob bin s, G . H . 1 989 . E ffects of comparativ e perform an ce inform atio n on

the accuracy of self -ratings and agreement between sel f- and supervi so r rat ings.

Jo urn al o f Apj> lie dP s ych olo gy , 7 4: 6 06 -6 10 .

Farh, J. L ., & W erbel, J. D . 1986. Effects of purpose of the appraisal and expectation of

validation on self-appraisal leniency. Journ al of A pplied P sychology, 71 : 527 -529.

Farh, J. L ., W erbel, J. D ., & Bedeian, A . G . 1988. An empirical investigation of self-

ap praisa l-b ase d p erfo rman ce e valu atio n. P erso nn el P sy ch olo gy , 4 1: 1 41 -1 56 .

Fedor, D . B., & Buckley, M . R. 1988. Issues surrounding the need for more frequent

mon ito rin g o f in div id ual p erfo rman ce in o rg an iz atio ns. P ub lic P erso nn el

Man ag emen t, 1 7: 4 35 -4 42 .

Fedor, D . B ., Eder, R . W ., & B uckley, M . R . 1989. The contributory effects of

supervisor intentions on subordina te feedback responses. Organiza tional Behavior

and Human D ecision P rocesses, 44: 396-414.

Fedor, D . B ., & R ow land, K . M . 1989. Investigating supervisor attributions of subordinate

perform an ce. Journal of Managem ent, 1 5: 405-416.

Feldm an, J. M . 1981. B eyond attribution theory: C ognitive processes in perform ance



37

Ferris, G. R., Y ates, V . L., G ilm ore, D . C., & Row land, K . M . 1985. The influence of

subord inate age on per fo rmance ratings and causa l a tt ribu tions. Pe rsonnel

Psycholo~y , 38: 545 -557 .

F is ic aro , S . A . 1 988. A ree xamin atio n o f th e re latio n b etwee n h alo erro r a nd ac cu ra cy .

Jou rnal o f Applied Psychology , 73: 239 -244 .

F ox , S ., B en-N ahum, Z ., & Y ino n, Y . 1 989 . P erceived sim ilarity an d accu racy of p eer

ratings. Journal o f ApJ>liedPsycho logy, 74 : 781-786 .

F ox , S ., & D in ur, Y . 19 88 . V alid ity o f self-assessm en t:A field ev aluatio n. P erso nn el

P sy ch olo ey , 4 1: 5 81 -5 92 .

Friedm an, M . G . 1986: 10 steps to objective appraisals. Personnel Journal. June: 66-71.

Fulk, J., B rief, A . P ., & Barr, S . H . 19 85 . T rust-in-su perv iso r and p erceived fairness and

accur acy o f perf ormance eva luations . Jou rnal o f Busines s Resea rch, 13: 299 -313 .

G alin, A ., & Ben oliel, B . 1 990 . Does the way y ou d ress affect yo ur p erfo rm ance rating ?

Personnel . Augus t: 49-52 .

G ellerm an, S . W ., & Hodgson, W . G . 1988. C yanam id's new take on perform ance

appra isal. Harvard Business Review. May-June: 36-41 .



38

G iles, W . F ., & Mo ssho ld er, K . W . 1 99 0. Emp lo yee reactio ns to co ntex tu al and sessio n

components o f per fo rmance appra isal . Journal o f Appli ed Psycho lo l:Y,75: 371-377 .

G irard , R . 1 988. Is th ere a n eed fo r p erfo rmance a pp ra is als ? Perso nn el Jo urn al. Augu st:

89-90.

G len, R . M . 19 90. P erfo rm an ce app raisal: An u nn erving y et u sefu l process. P ublic

Pe rsonnel Manai: ement, 19 : 1 -10 .

God dard , R W . 19 89 . Is y our app raisal sy stem h eaded fo r cou rt? P erso nn el Jo urn al.

January: 114-118 .

G om ez-Mejia, L. R , P age, R . C ., & Tornow , W . W . 1985. Im proving the effectiveness of

per fo rmance appra isal . Pe rsonnel Admin is tr ator . January: 74-81 .

Goodell, R . 1988. R oom for im provem ent. Personnel A dm inistrator. June: 132-142.

G reenberg, J. 1 986. D eterm inants of perceived fairn ess of perform ance evaluations.

Jo urn al o f App lied P sy ch olo i:Y , 7 1: 3 40 -3 42 .

G reenberg, J. 1988 . U sing ex planations to m an age impressions of perform ance app raisal

fa irn ess . In J. G ree nb erg & R B ies (Cha irs ), Commun ica tin i: f airn ess in

o ri:a niz ations . Sympos ium pre sented a t th e Meeting o f the Academy of Managemen t,



39

H arris, C . 1988. A com parison of em ployee attitudes tow ard tw o perform ance appraisal

sy stem s. P ublic P erso nnel Managem ent, 1 7: 443-456.

Harris, M . M ., & Sch aubro ec k, J. 1 988. A meta-an aly sis o f s elf-su perv iso r, se lf-p ee r, a nd

peer -supervi so r rat ings. Pe rsonnel Psycho logy, 41 : 43-62 .

H edge, J. W ., & K avanagh, M . J. 1988. Im proving the accuracy of perform ance

eva luat ions: Compar ison of th ree me thods of per fo rmance appra iser t ra in ing .

Journal of A pp lied P sycholog y, 73: 68-73 .

H eilm an, M . E., & Stopeck, M . H. 1985. Being attractive, advantage or disadvantage?

P erform an ce-based evaluations and recommend ed personnel actio ns as a function o f

.

appea rance, s ex , and job type . Organ iz ationa lBehavio r and Human Decis ion

P ro ce sse s, 3 5: 2 02 -2 15 .

H eneman, R . L . 1986. T he relationship betw een supervisory ratings and results-oriented

m easu res of perform ance: A meta-an aly sis. P ersonn el P sych ology , 39 : 811 -826.

Henem an, R. L., Greenberger, D . B., & Anonyuo, C. 1989. Attributions and exchanges:

T he effects of interpersonal facto rs o n th e d iag nosis of emplo yee perform ance.

A cademy of Managem ent Journal, 32 : 466-47 6.



40

Huber, V . L ., N eale, M . A ., & Northcraft, G . B . 1987. Judgm ent by heuristics: E ffects of

ratee and rater charac teri st ics and performance standards on performance-re la ted

judgments. O rganizational B ehavior and Human D ecision P rocesses, 40: 149-169.

Huber, V . L., Podsakoff, P. M ., & Todor, W . D. 1986. An investigation of biasing

factors in the attributions of sub ordinates and their supervisors. Journal of B usiness

R esearch, 14: 83-98.

Hughes, G . L ., & P rien, E . P . 1986. A n evaluation of alternate scoring m ethods for the

m ixed s tandard sca le . Per sonnel Psychology , 39: 839 -847 .

Hyde, A . C . 1 988. The n ew env iro nmen t fo r compensatio n a nd p erfo rmance ev alu atio n in

the pub lic sec to r. Pub lic Personne l Managemen t, 17: 351 -358 .

llgen, D . R ., & Moore, C . F . 1987. T ypes and choices of perform ance feedback. Journal

o f Applied Psychology , 72: 401 -406 .

Jacobs, R ., & Kozlow ski, S. W . 1985. A closer look at halo error in perform ance ratings.

Academy of Managemen t Jou rnal, 28: 201 -212 .

Jo lly , J. P ., R eyn old s, T . J., & S lo cum, J. W . 1 98 8. App licatio n o f th e m ean s-en d th eo retic

for unde rs tand ing the cogn itive bases of per fo rmance appra isal . Organizational



41

Kaufman , R . 1988. P repa ring use fu l perfo rmance indic ato rs . T ra in in~ and Development

Journal . September: 80-83.

Kerr, J. L . 1 988. S trateg ic contro l th ro ugh p erfo rmance appraisal an d reward s. Human

Resource Plann ing, 2 : 215-223 .

K ing strom , P .O ., & Main stone, L . E . 19 85. An investigation of th e rater-ratee

a cqua in tance and ra te r b ia s. Academy of Mana~emen t Jou rnal, 28: 641 -653 .

K inicki, A . J., & G riffeth, R . W . 1985. T he impact of sex-role stereoty pes on perfo rm ance

ratings and causa l a ttr ibut ions of per fo rmance. Journal o f Voca tiona l Behavio r, 27 :

155-170.

K ipnis, D ., & Schmid t, S . M . 1988. Upward in flu en ce sty le s: Relatio nship w ith

per fo rmance eva luations, sala ry , and s tress. Admin is tr at ive Sc ience Ouar te rly , 33 :

528-542.

K irk patrick , D . L . 1 986. P erfo rmance appra isal: You r ques tio ns an swered . T rain in~ and

Deve lopment Journal. May: 68-71.

K laas, B . S ., & DeN isi, A . S . 1989 . Managerial reactio ns to employ ee dissent: T he

impac t o f g rie vance activ ity on perfo rmance ra tings . Academy of Mana~ement



42

Kraig er, K ., & Ford , J. K . 19 85 . A meta-an aly sis o f ratee race effects in p erfo rmance

ratings . J ou rnal o f Applied Psychology , 70: 56-65 .

K rein, T . J. 1990. Perform ance review s that rate an "A ". Personnel. M ay: 38-40.

K roll, M ., & Joyce, G . 1989. What is your most im portant j ob function? Personnel

Admin is tra to r. J une: 156 -160 .

Krzy sto fia k, F ., C ardy, R ., & Newman , J. 1988. Imp lic it p ersonality a nd perfo rmance

app raisa l: The in flu ence o f tra it in fe ren ces on evalu ations o f b ehav io r. Journ al o f

App lie d P sy ch olo gy , 7 3: 5 15 -5 21 .

Lance, C. E., & W oehr, D . J. 1986. Statistical control of halo: C larification from two

co gnitive models of th e perform ance appraisal p rocess. Journ al of A p.plied

P~ycholo~y , 71: 679 -685 .

Landy, F. S., & Farr, J. L . 1980. Perform ance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87: 72-107.

Landy, F. S., & Farr, J. L. 1983. The m easurem ent o f w ork perform ance. M ethods.

theory. and app lic ations. Orlando, F lo rida: Academic P re ss .

L anza, P . 1985. Team app ra isa ls. P ersonnel Journ al. Ma rch: 47-51.

Larson, Jr., J. R . 1989. The dynamic in te rp la y between emp loye es' fe edba ck -se ek ing



43

L ee, C . 19 90 . Smoothing o ut ap praisal sy stem s. HR Magazine. March: 72 -7 6.

Levy, M. 1989. A lmost- pe rfe ct perfo rmance app ra is als . Personne l Jou rnal. Ap ril: 76-83 .

Locher, A . H ., & T eel, K . S. 1988. A ppraisal trends. P ersonnel Journal. S eptem ber: 139-

145.

Lock e, E . A . 1986. Gen era liz in g from la bo ra to ry to field s ettin gs. L ex in gto n, MA:

Lexington Books.

Longenecker, C . 0., & G ioia, D . A . 1988. N eglected at the top - executives talk about

ex ecutive ap praisals. S loan Managem ent R eview , 21: W in ter, 41-47.

Longenecker, C . 0., Sim s, H . P., & G ioia, D . A . 1987. Behind the m ask: The politics of

employee app ra is al. The Academy of Managemen t Execu tiv e, 1 : 183 -193 .

Lord , R . G . 1985. Acc uracy in b eh av io ral measuremen t: An alte rn ativ e d efin itio n b ase d on

rat er s' cogn itive schema and s ignal detec tion theory. Journal o f Ap .p li edPsycho logy,

70: 66-71.

L ord, R . G ., & Mah er, K . J. 19 89. C ogn itiv e processes in in du strial and o rg an izatio nal

p sy cholo gy . In C . L . Cooper & I. Rob ertso n (E els .) I nte rn atio nal re view o f

industrial and organizational psychology: 49-91. N ew Y ork: John W iley & Sons,



44

McEvoy , G . M . 1990. Pub lic sec to r manag ers' reac tio ns to a pp rais als b y subo rd in ate s.

Public Pe rsonnel Management, 19 : 201-212 .

M cEvoy, G . M ., & B uller, P . F . 1987. U ser acceptance of peer appraisals in an industrial

setti ng . Pe rsonnel Psycho logy, 40: 785-797 .

McEvoy , G . M ., & Cascio, W . F . 19 89 . C umulative ev id ence of the relationship b etw een

emp loyee ag e a nd jo b p erfo rmance . Jo urn al o f App lie d P sy cholo gy , 7 4: 1 1-17.

Me tz , E . J . 1988. De signing lega lly defens ib le per fo rmance app ra is al sys tems. T ra in ing

and Deve lopment Journal. July : 47-51.

M eyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V ., G allatly, I. R., G offin, R . D ., & Jackson, D . N . 1989.

Organ iz ationa l commitment and job perfo rmance: I t's th e natu re o f the commitment

that counts. Journal of A Pl'lied Psychology, 74: 152-156.

M ilkovich, G. T ., & Newman, J. M . 1991. Compensation. Plano, TX: Business

Public ations , I nc .

Milk ov ich , G . T ., & W igd or, A . K . 1 99 1. P ay fo r p erform an ce. E valuatin g p erform an ce

app ra is al and me rit p ay . Wash ington, DC: Na tiona l Academy Pre ss .

M iller, C . S ., K aspin , J. A ., & S chuster, M . H . 19 90. T he impact of perfo rm ance app raisal



45

Murphy , K . R . 1991. C rite rion issu es in perfo rmance appra isa l re se arc h: B ehav io ral

accuracy versus c lass if ication accuracy . Organiza tional Behavior and Human

Dec isio n P ro ce sses, 5 0: 4 5-5 0.

Murphy, K . R., & Balzer, W . K. 1989. Rater errors and rating accuracy. Journal of

AP l'lie d P sycholo !:y , 74: 619 -624 .

M urphy, K . R., & Balzer, W . K . 1986. System atic distortions in m em ory-based behavior

r atings and per fo rmance eva luations : Consequence s fo r ra ting accuracy . Journal o f

App lie d P sy ch olo gy , 7 1: 3 9-4 4.

Murphy, K . R., Balzer, W . K., Lockhart, M . C., & Eisenman, E. J. 1985. Effects of

.

previo us p erform an ce on evaluations of present perfo rm ance. Journ al o f A pplied

P sy ch olo gy , 7 0: 7 2-8 4.

Murphy, K . R ., & C onstans, J. I. 1987. B ehavioral anchors as a source of bias in rating.

Journal o f Applied Psychology , 72: 573-577 .

M urphy, K . R ., G annett, B. A ., H err, B. M ., & Chen, J. A . 1986. Effects of subsequent

performance on eva luations o f p revious per fo rmance. J ou rnal o f Applied

P sy ch olo gy , 7 1: 4 27 -4 31 .



46

Naffzig er, D . W . 1985. BARS, R IP s and recru itin g. P ers onne l Adm in is tra to r. Augus t: 8 5-

96.Nan ry , C . 1 988. P erfo rmance lin ked train in g. Pub lic Pers onnel Managemen t, 1 7: 4 57 -

464.

N apier, N . K ., & Latham , G . P . 1986. O utcom e expectancies of people w ho conduct

per fo rmance appra isals . Pe rsonnel Psycho logy, 39 : 827-837 .

N ath an , B . R ., & A lex and er, R . A . 19 85 . T he role o f in feren tial accu racy in p erfo rm an ce

ra tin g. Acad emy o f Manag emen tReview, 10: 1 09 -115 .

N athan , B . R ., & T ipp in s, N . 1 99 0. T he co nsequ en ces of h alo "erro r" in p erfo rm an ce

ra tin gs : A fie ld stu dy o f th e mode ra tin g effec t o f h alo on tes t v alid atio n re su lts.

Journal of A pplied P sychology, 75: 290-296.

Northcraft, G . B ., & Ashford, S. J. 1990. The preservation of self in everyday life: The

effe cts o f p erfo rman ce ex pe cta tio n an d feed back co ntex t o n feed back in qu iry .

O r~ an iz atio nal B eh av io r a nd Human Decisio n P ro cesses, 4 7: 4 2-6 4.

Olia n, J. D ., & Rynes , S . L . 1 984. O rg an iz atio nal staffin g: In te gra tin g p ra ctice w ith

s trat egy . Indust ria l Re la tions, 23 : 170-183 .



47

Pod sako ff, P . M . & Parh , 1 . L . 1 98 9. E ffects o f feed back sig n an d cred ib ility o n g oal

set ting and ta sk per fo rmance . Or~an izationa lBehavior and Human Deci sion

P ro ce sse s, 4 4: 4 5-6 7.

Pooyan, A ., and Eberhardt, B . 1. 1989. C orrelates of perform ance appraisal satisfaction

among supervisory and nonsupervisory employees. 10urn al of B usiness R esearch ,

1 9: 2 15 -2 26 .

Prien, E . P ., & Hughes, G . L . 1987. T he effect of quality control revisions on m ixed

s tandard sca le ra ting e rr or s. Personne l Psycholo~y , 40: 815 -823 .

P rin ce, 1 . B ., & L aw ler, E . E . 1 98 6. Does salary discussio n h urt the develo pmen tal

per fo rmance appra isal? Organiza tional Behavio r and Human Decis ion Processes, 37 :

357-375.

Pulakos, E. D ., Schm itt, N ., & O stroff, C . 1986. A w arning about the use of a standard

dev ia tion acros s d imens ions with in ra te es to measure halo . 10u rnal o f Ap 'p lie d

P sy ch olo ~y , 7 1: 2 9-3 2.

Pulakos, E. D ., W hite, L. A ., O ppler, S. H ., & Borm an, W . C. 1989. Exam ination of

ra ce and sex e ffe cts on per fo rmance r atings . Jou rnal o f Ap -p lie dPsychology , 74:



48

Romanoff, K . E . 1989. The te n commandmen ts o f p erfo rmance managemen t. P ersonnel.

January : 24-28.

R othstein, H . R. 1990. Interrater reliability of job perform ance ratings: G row th to

asympto te level w ith increasing opp ortunity to o bserve. Journ al of A pj> lied

P sy ch olo gy , 7 5: 3 22 -3 27 .

Russell , J . S., & Goode, D . L . 1988. A n analysis of m anagers' reactions to their ow n

performance appra is al fe edback . Jou rnal o f Applied Psychology , 73: 63-67 .

S ack ett, P . R ., Z ed eck , S ., & Fog li, L . 19 88 . R elatio ns betw een measu res o f ty pical an d

maximum job per fo rmance. J ou rnal o f Applied Psychology , 73: 482-486 .

S ah l, R . J. 1990. Design e ffe ctiv e perfo rmance appraisa ls. P ersonnel Journ al. October: 53-

60.

Sandle r, L . 1990. Two-sided performance rev iews. Per sonnel Jou rnal. J anua ry : 75-78 .

Sankowsky, D . 1989. A psychoana ly tic a ttributiona l mode l for subord inate poor

perform ance. H um an R esource M anagem ent, 28: 125-139.

Scherkenbach, W . W . 1985. Perform ance appraisal and quality: Ford's new philosophy.

Oua lity P ro gre ss. April: 4 0-4 6.



49

Schneier, C . E., B eatty, R. W ., & B aird, L. S. 1986b. H ow to construct a successful

pe rformance appra isal system. Tra in ing and Deve lopment Journal. April: 38-42 .

S chneier, C . E., G eis, A ., & Wert, J. A . 1987. P erform ance appraisals: N o appointm ent

needed. Personne l Jou rnal. Novembe r: 80-87 .

Scholtes, P. R . 1987. A n elaboration on D em ing's teachings on perform ance ap'praisal.

M adison, W I: Joiner A ssociates, Inc.

Schoo rman , F . D . 1 988. E sca la tio n b ias in p erfo rmance apprais als: An unin tende d

consequence of supervi so r par tic ipation in h ir ing dec is ions. Journal o f Ap .p lied

P sy ch olo gy , 7 3: 5 8-6 2.

Schrader, A . W . 1989. MBO m akes dollar sense. Personnel Journal. July: 32-37.

Schw eiger, D . M ., & Leana, C . R . 1986. Participation in decision m aking. In E. A .

Locke (EeL), Generaliz ing f rom labora to ry to f ie ld set tings: 147-166 . Lexing ton ,

MA : L ex in gton Boo ks.

Shap iro , G . L ., & Des sler, G . 1 985. A re se lf ap praisals more rea lis tic among p ro fe ssio nals

or no nprofessionals in health care? P ublic P ersonnel Manag em ent, 14: 285-290.

Shore, L. M ., & Thornton, G. C . 1986. Effects of gender on self - and supervisory



50

Smither, J. W ., B arry, S . R ., & R eilly, R . R . 1989. A n investigation of the validity of

expert tr ue sco re e stima te s in app ra is al r esea rch. Jou rnal o f ApJ'lie d Psychology , 74:

143-151.

Smither, J. W ., C ollins, H ., & Buda, R . 1 98 9. Wh en ratee satisfactio n in flu ences

perfo rmance eva luations : A case o f illu so ry cor re la tion. Jou rnal o f ApJ'lie d

Psychology , 74: 599 -605 .

Sm ither, J. W ., & Reilly, R. R. 1987. True intercorrelation am ong job com ponents, tim e

delay in rating, and rater intellig ence as determ in ants of accu racy in perform ance

ratings. O rgan izational B ehavior an d Human D ecision P rocesses, 4 0: 36 9-391.

Sm ither, J. W ., R eilly, R . R ., & B uda, R . 1988. Effect of prior perform ance inform ation

on ra tings o f p re sent per fo rmance: Contr as t versus a ss im ila tion revis ite d. Jou rnal o f

App lied P sy ch olo gy , 7 3: 4 87 -4 96 .

S olomon, R . J. 1990. D eveloping job specific app raisal factors in large organizations.

P ublic P ersonnel Managem ent, 19 : 11-24.

S rinivas, S ., & Mo towid lo , S . J. 1 98 7. E ffects o f raters' stress o n th e disp ersio n an d

favorability of p erform ance ratings. Jou rnal of A pplied P sycho logy, 7 2: 24 7-251.



51

Tafti, P . M . 1 990. F ace to face. T rain in g and Dev elo pment Jo urn al. N ov ember: 6 6-7 1.

Tenopyr, M . L . 1988. A rtifa ctu al relia bility o f fo rc ed -choice sca le s. Journ al o f App lied

P sy ch olo gy , 7 3: 7 49 -7 51 .

Thom pson, D . E., & Thompson, T. A . 1985. Task-based perform ance appraisal for blue-

co lla r jobs: Eva lu ation o f rac e and sex e ffe cts. Journ al o f App lie d P sychology , 70:

747-753.

Tho rndik e, R . L . (1949). P ersonnel se le ction: Test a nd mea su remen t te chnique s. New

York: W iley.

T sui, A . S., & B arry, B . 1986. Interpersonal affect and rating errors. A cademy of

Management Journal , 29: 586-599.

V ance, R. J., M acCallum , R. C., Coovert, M . D ., & H edge, J. W . 1988. Construct

va lidi ty of multiple job performance measures using conf irmatory fac tor analys is .

Jou rnal of A pj)lied P sychology, 7 3: 74-80.

Vines, L. S. 1988. How 's the boss doing? Hum an Resource Executive. M ay: 36-38.

Vin ton, K . L . 1990. Documen ta tion t ha t g ets re su lts. P ersonnel. F eb ru ary : 42-46.

VonGlinow , M. A . 1985. Reward s tr ategie s fo r a ttra cting, eva luating, and reta in ing



52

Warrenfe1tz, R . B . 1989. A n achievem ent based approach to evaluating engineering

tech nician s. P ub lic P erso nn el Man ag ement, 1 8: 2 43 -2 62 .

Wayne, S . J., & F erris, G . R . 19 90 . Influence tactics, affect, and exchan ge qu ality in

supervisor-subordina te interac tions: A labora tory experiment and f ie ld study.

Jo urn al o f A pp lied P syc ho lo ~y , 7 5: 48 7-4 99 .

W ehrenberg, S. B . 1988. Train supervisors to m easure and evaluate perform ance.

P erso nn el Jo urn al. F ebru ary: 7 7-7 9.

W exley, K . N., & Klimoski, R . 1984. Performance appraisal: An update. In K. M .

Rowland & G. R . Ferris (Eds .), R es earch in p erso nn el and human resources

manag emen t, Vol. 2 : 3 5-79. G reenwich , CT : JA I P res s.

W ex1ey,K . N ., & S nell, S. A . 1987. M anagerial pow er: A neglected aspect of the

per fo rmance appra isal inte rv iew. Journal o f Business Research , 15 : 45-54 .

W herry, R. J. 1983. W herry's theory of rating. In F.L. Landy & J.L. Farr (Eds.), The

measurement of work per fo rmance. Methods . theory . and apJ>lications:283-303 .

O rlando , FL: Acad em ic P res s.

W ight, D . T . 1 985. The sp lit ro le in p erfo rmance appraisal. P ers onnel Adm in istrato r.



53

Wood s, J. G ., & D illio n, T . 1 985. T he p erforman ce rev iew approach to impro ving

produc tiv ity . Personnel. March: 20-27 .

Wyatt C om pany, The. 1989. R esults of the 1989 W yatt survey: G etting your hands around

perform ance m anagem ent. T he Wyatt C ommunicator. Fourth Q uarter: 4-18.

W ashington, DC: The Wyatt C om pany, R esearch and Inform ation C enter.

Z alesny, M . D . 1990. R ater confidence and social influence in perform ance appraisal.

Jo urnal o f A pplied P sychology , 7 5: 274 -289 .

54

APl'E'IDIX

SI I1DI II I II ) ' f Re8ea reh and Manqer ial Pe rfOI1l l llDCeAppraioaI Li te l ll tur e



PrImary --Explored FieldStvdy "110 . To .a b S tu dy I J t Re ri ew

MdhocIoIoIJ

Sarver DI8ea88oa c- 9tw cIy

I n fo l '1 lUl ti on P roc e ooD a

Hopn,1987

H ub er e t a l. , 1 98 6

J ol ly e t a l., 1 98 8

Mo un t & ; T hom pe on , 1 98 7

S chmi tt e t a l. , 1 98 6

.---

Ra ter /RJ l te e Cha ra c te r iJ t la

B81zer , 1986

B r ann ic k & ;BnDDi ck , 1989

D eN isi e t a l., 1 98 9

Fekbnanetal.,1986

H ub er e t a l. , 1 98 7

K ar l & ;W ex Ie y, 1 98 9

IGni ck i & ;G r if fe th , 1985

K oz lowl ld & ; K in ch , 1 98 7

K oz lowa ld e ta l. , 1 98 6

Krzyl l tof ia1ce t a l ., 1988

Mu rp hy & . B al ze r, 1 98 6

M ur ph y et a l., 1 98 5

Mur phy , G I IIU 1e tte t a I. , 1 986

M ur ph y e t a l. , 1 98 9

P 8d ee tt & ; H ee n, 1 98 9

Sm it he r & .R e i ll y, 1987

Smi th er e t a l. , 1 98 8

S ri ni vu & .Mo lowi dl o, 1 98 7

S te in er & ; R ai n, 1 98 9

W tl Ii am a e t a l. , 1 98 5

W tl 1i am a e t a I. , 1 98 6

W tl Ii am a e t a l. , 1 99 0

DobbiDIIet a l., 1988 ~ict &. Levine, 1988

Drazin &. Auter, 1987 CaR ly &; D obbiDa, 1986

Fedor &. R owl8nd, 1989 CzaJu &. D eNisi, 1988

Ferria et al., 1985 DobbiDa et aI., 1988

H - et al., 1 989 G alio& ;B enolie!,990K in pt rom & ;M ai n8 to ne , 1 98 5

Lawrmce, 1988 Heilm8n &. Stopeck, 1985

~OIetal., 1989

Shore &;Thorn too, 1986 ,

T hom pe on & ; T homp ao n, 1 98 5

T lu i & . B ar ty , 1 98 6

l oR i & . M ah er , 1 98 9 B ulb & ; Mu rp hy , 1 985

D i pboye , 1985

Mu rp hy , 1 99 1

Na t Iw1 &;AleXllDder , 1985

Sa ukowa ky, 1989

S chmi dt e t a l. , 1 98 6

K no ice r & ; F oR I, 1 98 5

M cEvoy &; C ucio, 1989

G re en ha ua e t a l. , 1 99 0

M«hodolOlJ

Primary'-

Explored Fie ld Study Lab S tudy U t R er ie w SarYey DI8eu8IIioD. c- Study " I Iow To .

55



E lTon madAee aney

F uI k d . I., 1 98 5 Becker&:Cardy , 1986 H- d .I ., 1 98 7 Dickin8on, 1987 SulKy &: B81zcr, 1988

J II CO b 8& :K oz low .k i, 1 98 5 Kmn ou ri & : B el ze r, 1 99 0 Murphy & : Belzer, 1 989 Feldman, 1 986

K Iu a & : D eN ia i, 1 98 9 K a rl & :We x1e y, 1989 F i ai ca ro , 1988

N a th8n & :Ta pp iD a , 1990 K oz Iow .k i & : K in ch , 1 98 7 I .ADCe&:Woehr , 1986

Ro Iba te in , 1990 Mwpby & :COD I1 Im I ,1987 L ol d, 1 98 5

S ch nU tt d .I, 1 98 6 Mw pb y & : P ar da ff y, 1 98 9 Mu rp hy , 1 99 1

S ch oom um , 1 98 8 Mur phy & :R e yno ld a, 1988 P ula kO i d .I ., 1 98 6

M urp hy d .I., 1 98 9 Sl II I towaky, 1989

P ad ,e tt & : l1 ,m , 1 98 9

S~,Bany&:~, 1989

S~, CoDioa & :Buda, 1989

F-u.act

Alexmder d . I. , 1 98 9 B8nnia ter , 1986 ar-, 1989 N an ry , 1 98 8 H ar pe r, 1 98 6

B ec ke r & : Kli mo ak i, 1 98 9 D eG re ao ri o & : Fi ab er , 1 98 8 Ta ft i, 1 990

D orfm m ct .I., 1 986 D u, In , 1 98 9 W "h t, 1 985

E ar le y, 1 98 8 F ed or ct a I., 1 98 9

P ea rc e & : P or te r, 1 98 6 l1 ,m & : M or e, 1 98 7

P ri nc e & : L a wl er , 1 98 6 K li mo ak i & : I nb , 1 99 0

R u.e D& :G oo de , 1 98 8 No rt hc ra ft & :A a hf o ld , 1990

W e xJ ey & : S ne D, 1 98 7 Poda 8ko ff & :F lUb , 1989

RatenlAppniuI S o u r . . -

E de r & : F ed or , 1 98 9 F lUb & :Dobb io a , 1989 H a rr ia & :S c haub rn e ck , 1988 Be rn ar d in , 1986 Bema rd in & :B e at ty , 1987 Edwan l a, 1990b

FlUb d .I., 1988 Farb &:Weibel, 1986 H_, 1986 McEvoy , 1990 Be rn ar d in & :Abbot t, 1 985 E dw an la & : S p ro ul l, 1 98 5

F ox & : D in ur, 1 98 8 Za1eeny, 1990 Steel, 1985 CunpbeD &: lee, 1988 Lanza, 1985

F ox ct al., 1 98 9 M cE vo y, 1 98 8 Lawr ie , 1989

G eo ra e & : Smi th , 1 99 0 V ine a, 1988

M c Ev oy & : B uD er , 1 98 7

S b8 pi ro & : D eu le r, 1 98 5

V II DC ed . I. , 1 98 8

R8ter TI 'I I iD ID8

Du,In, 1988 Athey &: Mclnlyre, 1 987 Smith, 1986 Banb &:~, 1985 B rown , 1 98 7

H ed ,e & : Ka va nq h, 1 98 8 K au fmm , 1 98 8

Weh re nbc ra , 1988 Ma 11iD& :B8 r t0 I , 1 986

Sim a d .I., 1987

Fol'III8t8

H a rr ia , 1 988 Murphy & :CO I II tID I, 1987 K a ne & :F re aI IID , 1986 A nt el , 1 98 9 McBr iI It y, 1988 G i bb , 1985

H ua he a & : P ri m, 1 98 6 Mu rp hy & : P ai d_ tr y, 1 98 9 K an e I e F r ea II ID , 1 98 7 Na ff zi ae r, 1 985 Sc hr 8de r, 1 989 O l iv e r, 1 985

P ri m & : Hu ,h ea , 1 98 7 Te oopyr , 1988

56

Primary ~ ExpIoreoi " I Iow To .ield Study Lab Study U t Reriew

Methodol"IJ

Sun>eJ IJi8eu8Iioa c- Study



React '" T o App ni 88 l8

Lea" Ramifteati0D8

S o cUd 8Dd P o li ti e 8l A8 p ed a

Pe r fO I 'l lU lDCe Muaaemea t

PA Pnod ic e 8

D obb inu t a t., 1 99 0

Gi l c: 8c t .MOI Iho lde r , 1990

N8p ie r c t . L a tJ u un , 1 9 86

P oo ye c t. E be rb ar dt , 1 98 9

IGpn io c t. S c hm i dt , 1 9 88

L o nJ e ne c lc e r e t a t. , 1 9 87

W8 ' JDI=c t .Fe r r ia , 1990

Wexley It S u eD , 1 9 87

C l emen t c t. S t e ve n a, 1 9 89

Barrett It Kem llD , 1 9 87

G r if fm , 1 9 89

M ill er e t a t., 1 99 0

Re in h an it , 1 9 85

D a le y, 1 99 0

C le ve la nd e t a t. , 1 98 9

L oc he r c t. T e a l, 1 98 8

W am: nf eh z, 1 98 9

Wya tt , 1 9 89

God da r d, 1 9 89

B r umb a ck , 1 9 88

K ro D c t. J o yc e, 1 98 9

Perry It P e tn k i8 , 1 9 88

S c hn e ie r, 1 9 89

Mm, 1988

V i nt oo , 1 9 90

D a y, 1 98 9

K i rk p at ri ck , 1 9 86

L ev y, 1 98 9

Roman o ff , 1 9 89

Sc lmei e r e t"',

19868

S ch ne ie r e t . .., 1 98 6b

S ch ne ie r e t . .., 1 98 7

B ufon i e t d ., 1 98 8

De a rd e n, 1 9 87

E y re a , 1 9 89

G i lb e rt c t. N e l l oG , 1 9 89

G i ra rd , 1 9 88

H owa n! , 1 98 7

K r ei n. 1 9 90

l aw ri e, 1 99 0

L ee , 1 98 9, 1 99 0

R e ed c t. K r o D, 1 98 5

R e ed ct . H o ll ma nn , 1 98 7

R od ,e R, 1 99 0

S I Ih I , 1990

S8DdIe r , 1990

S o lomon , 1 9 90

Waldman

'"

Kc :net t , 1990

Derven, 1990 Cayer et a t., 1988

Ed~., 1990a Cocheu, 1986

L o nJ c :n e ck e r c t. G i oi a, 1 9 88 Co z ze tt o, 1 9 90

D e et a c t. T y le r, 1 98 6

G eUe I1 ll ll ll ct . H o d, -, 1 98 8

GIea,I990

G oo de D, 1 98 8

G om ez -M ejia e t a t., 1985

Hal l, 1987

IA um ey er c t. B ee be , 1 98 8

S ch er It en b8 ch . 1 98 5

Wa ,d , 1 98 7

Woodt ct .Di l liou,1985

57

Primary'-

E1rplond F i el d S t udy Lab S tudy UReriew

MethodoloaJ

SurYey DI8cu8ioD c- St1Idy " 11 - T o.



Othen

Greenbert,1986

K er r, 1 98 8

M ey er, e t 8 1., 1 98 9

S8cl ce u e t 81 ., 1 988

S te el & Mc: ot o, 1 98 6W a ldma n e t 8 1. , 1 99 0

H er ber t & D ov en pi ke , 1 99 0

M urp hy , H err e t 8 1. , 1 98 6

F ed or & B uc kl ey , 1 98 8

G r ec :ob cq , 1988

G r ec :ob cq , 1990

H yd e, 1 98 8

L ow e, 1 98 6Moc :o , 1989

M _, 1989

S cb o1 te a, 1 9 87

S Ia tt et y, 1 98 5

V on Gl iD ow , 1 98 5

~, 1986

Documents

PA-Research and Practice